Can the US afford that $5tr?

[bripat9643]

Big Reb -

I think you may have acidentally posted that on the wrong thread.

THIS thread is about the US$5 trillion that Romney's tax plan is expected to cost.

There is no $5 trillion, moron. That lie has already been debunked multiple times. Anyone who watched the debates knows it's a lie.

 

[Saigon]

.


A) It's not a five trillion dollar tax cut, even Wasserman-Schultz or one of those other whackos have already admitted this. It was a number made up entirely by guesses. It's not a five trillion dollar fucking tax cut, that was debunked long ago. God damn this board is nuts.


.

Please the post from Business Week above yours. Apparently they disagree with you.

 

[Mac1958]

.


A) It's not a five trillion dollar tax cut, even Wasserman-Schultz or one of those other whackos have already admitted this. It was a number made up entirely by guesses. It's not a five trillion dollar fucking tax cut, that was debunked long ago. God damn this board is nuts.


.

Please the post from Business Week above yours. Apparently they disagree with you.

Yes, they do. To begin with, Business Week, the Tax Policy Center, the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute all lean left, and I hope you know that. They are never used as sources within the financial community.

And in the very article to which you refer, the point is not the five trillion, it's how Romney says he's going to "pay for it". Obama and the Democrats are being intellectually dishonest, they're pretending the five trillion is a net cut. Don't you know that?

The article you provided is an argument that Romney's plan does not, in fact, "pay" in full for the five trillion, that the net result is a loss. So this is a discussion over the net result of the tax cuts, which is the whole freaking point, and which is the point that Obama and Democrats either don't or won't understand.

Jeezuz.

AAUUUUUGHHHHH

.

 

[Saigon]

Business Week, the Tax Policy Center, the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute all lean left, and I hope you know that

Oh, right.

And this has nothing to do with the fact that your own politics have become so incredibly extreme that Franco himself would consider you too right wing for words?

Similar findings appeared in a dozen different media sources around the world, most of which are simply not left wing by any definition.

btw. I think most people understand that we are talking about a net loss from the tax cuts.

 

[copsnrobbers]

The face for the left was completely unaware and lost for words during the debate.

Why?

You can't survive on lies.

 

[Saigon]

You can't survive on lies.

I hope Romney knows this...he is still denying the $5 trillion one last time I looked.

 

[Mac1958]

Business Week, the Tax Policy Center, the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute all lean left, and I hope you know that

Oh, right.

And this has nothing to do with the fact that your own politics have become so incredibly extreme that Franco himself would consider you too right wing for words?

Similar findings appeared in a dozen different media sources around the world, most of which are simply not left wing by any definition.

btw. I think most people understand that we are talking about a net loss from the tax cuts.

My politics have become so incredibly extreme. I love this. Do you know my opinions on war, taxation, gay rights, abortion, and health care? Obviously not. Holy crap, my coffee nearly came through my nose on that one. You must have me confused with someone else. And you consider Franco a reputable source?

And anyone who understands the difference between gross tax cuts and net tax cuts would not be complaining about the five trillion. This would not be an issue, period. So it's either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty that's driving this silliness.

.

 

[copsnrobbers]

You can't survive on lies.

I hope Romney knows this...he is still denying the $5 trillion one last time I looked.

Where? Up Chris Mathews leg?

 

[Saigon]

And anyone who understands the difference between gross tax cuts and net tax cuts would not be complaining about the five trillion. This would not be an issue, period. So it's either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty that's driving this silliness.

So which is it with Business Week and the BBC?

 

[Mac1958]

And anyone who understands the difference between gross tax cuts and net tax cuts would not be complaining about the five trillion. This would not be an issue, period. So it's either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty that's driving this silliness.

So which is it with Business Week and the BBC?

Agenda-driven intellectual dishonesty. Easiest question I'll get all day.

However, again, the Business Week piece that you provided is about how Romney is going to "pay for" his tax cuts. Read it again. It does not go into gross vs. net, it only infers, probably because that might weaken its meme.

.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is a 5 trillion dollar tax cut. Now, the fact that Romney has some nebulous plan to make up the money from eliminating deductions does not change that. Also, the fact that he absolutely refuses to state what deductions he is going to eliminate should be a matter of alarm to a thinking voter.

But, in addition to the proposed tax cuts, he is stating that he will add two trillion to the military budget.
So why does the military-industrial complex need another two trillion? How about a couple of trillion for our failing infrastructure? Bridges are quite literally falling down on our Interstate Highway System. Our power grid is a 50+ year old antique, vulneble both the cyber attack and natural disasters. Plus it needs to be extended into energy rich areas.

Romney claims that he can make up much of the tax cut from cutting spending. However, his only concrete proposal thus far was to eliminate PBS. Since government support for PBS is less than 500 million dollars, that is about the same as someone with a 50,000 dollar credit card bill stating that they will address that problem by buying one less candy bar a week.

Romney's plans can be addressed with one word 'Arithmetic'. Nothing adds up. It is blatant Bullshit, and should be addressed as such publically.

 

[Mac1958]

And anyone who understands the difference between gross tax cuts and net tax cuts would not be complaining about the five trillion. This would not be an issue, period. So it's either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty that's driving this silliness.

So which is it with Business Week and the BBC?

And by the way, I have a question for you.

Why, when discussing Romney's tax cuts, does Obama only refer to gross (as does the title of your thread)?

I think we both know the answer, but I thought I'd ask.

.

 

[Saigon]

Mac -

I'm very surprised you need to ask - it's fairly obvious shorthand.

We all saw the debate, we all read the analyses following it and we all understand what the point is here: Romney's tax cuts will cause a massive drop in total tax revenues, and will almost certainly push up the national debt.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Liberals MUST LIE, PROPAGANDIZE, CHEAT..they can't run on their record, idea's.. IT'S FAILURE. POWER, POWER, POWER.. That's all that matters.

Mitt Romney stated OVER AND OVER AND OVER that the 5 trillion dollar number is an ABJECT lie but liberals keep running with it thinking Americans are so dumb as to believe them over Romney's own plan and words. IT WON'T WORK. The sheer desperation and dirty campaign of Barack Obama is disgraceful and everyone is talking about it. It won't go unnoticed. November will see numbers that will shock the Zombie Squad, their Media cohorts, and the messiah himself. You've done it to yourselves.. you deserve it! F A I L

 

[Wroberson]

And why is the "Romney Plan" expected to cost 5 trillion? Because it sounded like a good number when progressives made it up.

The best answer I've come up with on why it's going to cost $5 trillion
instead of $480 billion is because it covers 10 years and not just the
4 years of a Presidential Term. $1.92 trillion is the cost for the next 4 years.

 

[Mac1958]

Mac -

I'm very surprised you need to ask - it's fairly obvious shorthand.

We all saw the debate, we all read the analyses following it and we all understand what the point is here: Romney's tax cuts will cause a massive drop in total tax revenues, and will almost certainly push up the national debt.

So you're going to continue to pretend that Romney wants a $5 trillion net tax cut?

.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, I find Romney's plan 'Gross'. Pretty much a lie in all it's particulars. The President's plan is only slightly better.

So, how do we get out of this hole?

Well, it is going to take both spending cuts and tax increases. At the same time, we have to increase funding for education and R and D. You see, we are in a worldwide competition with other nations for technical superiority, and the manufacturing profits that go with that superiority. At present, we have dropped behind in several important segments of that race.

Little South Korea graduates more engineers every year than does the US. As does China. If our manufacturing base cannot keep up with the competition, there will be not be an adaquete tax base to pay off our debts in the coming decades.

So, where do we cut, and where do we increase? Were this a real debate, we would be getting detailed answers to this. Problem is, Ann Romney was correct. A real solution is going to exact pain all the way up the scale. Neither party will address that. Romney wants to assure the wealthy that not only will he not raise their taxes, he will lower them. Obama wants to assure the middle class that he will not raise their taxes, and wil try to lower them. The middle and upper income taxes have to be raised. The middle to at least what they were under Clinton. The wealthy to at least a 5% increase above what they were under Clinton. And eliminate the deductions to the point that the wealthy follow the Buffet Rule.

Reality is never pleasant, and Social Security and MediCare will have to be means tested in the future. The military is going to have to take major cuts. Do we need to spend more than the next 14 nations combined? Can we continue to do so and reduce the deficit? I fail to see how.

 

[Murf76]

.

Good grief, here we go again. This is like the phony Big Bird hysteria.

A) It's not a five trillion dollar tax cut, even Wasserman-Schultz or one of those other whackos have already admitted this. It was a number made up entirely by guesses. It's not a five trillion dollar fucking tax cut, that was debunked long ago. God damn this board is nuts.

B) The Democrats are simply mystified by dynamic scoring. It's like a genetic thing with them, they just don't see it. They've convinced themselves that a tax cut somehow takes that money out of the economy. The idea of a tax cut is that the saved funds (which don't "belong" to the government in the first fucking place) stimulate spending and growth, thereby making the resulting economic activity larger than the tax cut on a macro level.

I'm not even freaking voting for Romney. I'm not even a big fan of his tax plan. But fer chrissake, one of the these days my head is gonna freakin' explode from the simplistic, intellectually dishonest, obtuse crap I read here.

.

It was Stephanie Cutter...

[youtube]Q0g8COdYcU0[/youtube]



They can't even smuggle that shit past Obama's own campaign mouthpiece. THAT's how sad it is.

 

[Seawytch]

Mac -

I'm very surprised you need to ask - it's fairly obvious shorthand.

We all saw the debate, we all read the analyses following it and we all understand what the point is here: Romney's tax cuts will cause a massive drop in total tax revenues, and will almost certainly push up the national debt.

So you're going to continue to pretend that Romney wants a $5 trillion net tax cut?

.

Who is "pretending" that? He wants to cut taxes by 5 trillion over 10 years, yes or no? He has proposed paying for these cuts by eliminating loopholes, but won't specify which ones, yes or no? There aren't enough tax loopholes that exist that would cover the proposed tax cut, yes or no?

 

[Vel]

As for how you make up the loss of revenues from tax cuts? I believe if you look closely at the Reagan tax cuts you'll see that although Reagan cut taxes substantially that tax revenues were down only a negligible amount because his policies spurred so much economic growth. You progressives never want to talk about economic growth though...do you? Of course, I can understand WHY it's a sore subject under this President.

LOL Oldstyle, You don't think Obama and crew know anything about economic growth do you? They can't even look at what's going on in North Dakota to get a clue. That's why they're having such a hard time understanding Romney. Their only idea on revenue is to take it from someone else. They don't know how to bake a bigger pie.